RE: [Leica] A more interesting question

[Peterson Arthur G NSSC <PetersonAG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>]

In agreement with Dave, Paul, Ed, and others, it has to be Cartier-Bresson.
Many other photographers accomplished many other great things (technically,
aesthetically, as pioneers, as popularizers, and in other ways), but
Cartier-Bresson's photographs make him one of the truly unique artistic
geniuses of the century (along with people like Picasso, Stravinsky,
Faulkner, and few others).  Incomparable!

And Dave's mention of the idea of Cartier-Bresson's "weak portrait work"
leads me to add that I too had thought his portraits not only different in
style from his more typical work, but also not his best.  Yet a recent
viewing of the actual prints for the first time at the National Portrait
Gallery in Washington left me surprised to be astounded and even overwhelmed
by photographs I had already seen before in books (e.g., "Tête-à-Tête"), so
much so that I was compelled to go back several times and see them again!  I
would urge those who may find Cartier-Bresson's portraits "weak" to just
keep looking.  :-)

Art Peterson


		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Dave Fisher [mailto:tekapo@golden.net]
		Sent:	Thursday, January 13, 2000 10:00 AM
		To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
		Subject:	Re: [Leica] A more interesting question 

		Ed, let me jump in with nod of agreement to you and a
pre-emptive strike to
		anybody else here. It seems to have become fashionable of
late to ridicule
		HCB, because he didn't do his own printing, or his weak
portrait work and
		sketches. Frankly I find most of this ridiculous, but then
perhaps I'm
		focusing too closely on the massive body of work he did that
made his name,
		and not the trivialities of the envious. Are there better
photogs? Probably,
		but for me that's beside the point. Cartier-Bresson was the
first
		photographer that sat me up and take the medium seriously. I
got interested
		in photography because I was obsessed with movies. I planned
on going to
		film school, and figured that learning how to use a manual
camera would be a
		good preliminary education. That was my sole motivation for
still
		photography, simply an elementary schooling in optics and
composition.
		Cartier-Bresson's images changed all that. I found his work
to be true
		communication, and I couldn't help but be inspired by his
shooting style and
		the sense of freedom. This in turn got me checking out all
kinds of
		documentary photographers, and I've been hooked ever since.
Certainly,
		there's a power and mystique in his photographs that is
difficult to
		duplicate today. Cultures change, and with them, so too does
our physical
		environment and the consciousness of subjects when a camera
is pointed
		toward them. But should I hold these arguments against HCB?
Absolutely not.
		As I say, there may be better photogs out there, but
Cartier-Bresson was the
		guy whose work turned me on to the medium and provided me
direction. We are
		all indebted to him, and it's rare that I ever go back to
his stuff and fail
		to remain impressed.
		------------------------------------------------
		DGF PHOTOGRAPHY
		http://home.golden.net/~tekapo

		> From: Ed Buziak <ed.buziak@camera-and-darkroom.co.uk>
		> Subject: Re: [Leica] A more interesting question

		> My personal choice "for the century" would be Henri
Cartier-Bresson
		because
		> his
		> photographs give me much pleasure and inspiration... and
because the
		> subjects are
		> not there any more. He caught them in an instant before
they were gone.